Editorial

European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Introduction

Today, almost 80% of economic value creation is based on intellectual resources. However, most organisations still do not know how to reveal the value of these resources and how to give direction to future value creation. The concept of intellectual capital gives intangible reources ‘a body’ and therefore makes it possible to measure, communicate and interpret them.

In June 1999 The Netherlands hosted the OECD international symposium on: ”Measuring and reporting intellectual capital; experiences, issues, and prospects”. This symposium turned out to be a milestone in the development of the intellectual capital movement. For the first time in history researchers and practitioners from all over the world joined together to discuss the progress made in the field of measurement and reporting of intellectual capital. Many of today’s IC initiatives are rooted in this OECD symposium (e.g. Danish Guideline, the MERITUM project and others). In 2009 it is ten years since this groundbreaking symposium took place and it is time to take stock of the developments over the last ten years. What progress did we make in raising awareness, developing robust measurement and reporting methods, and helping organisations to better manage their IC?

In April 2009 our Centre for Research in Intellectual Capital (CRIC) hosted the International Conference on Intellectual Capital (ECIC) in collaboration with Academic Conferences Ltd. The aim of this conference was to give a state‑of‑the‑art overview of intellectual capital measurement and management and contribute to the further advancement of IC theory and practice. The congress – which took place in Haarlem, The Netherlands – was attended by 150 participants from 37 countries. Based on almost 70 papers, we designed a conference program that consisted of more than 90 sessions. This special issue is based on a selection of the best papers of our conference.

Main programme

In our call for papers we invited researchers, practitioners and academics to present their research findings, work in progress, case studies and conceptual advances in the field of intellectual capital (IC) measurement and management.

From the main program of the conference we included two papers in this special issue. First, the paper by Durst and Gueldenberg, The meaning of intangible assets: new insights into company succession in SME’s. This paper was selected as best paper. This paper sheds an important new light on a growing problem within the European Union. It is based on the state of the art in IC theory, it uses a well describes mixed‑method methodology, contains a good discussion section that shows the importance but also some of the limitations of the research. The European Commission estimates that one third of all EU entrepreneurs will leave within the next ten years and the changing demography of the EU will reduce the pool of potential successors. This paper shows intangible assets have a remarkable influence on the external successor’s decision making, in particular brand, partners, key‑employees, knowledge retention and corporate culture. The second paper is a by Van Winkelen and McKenzie, Using scenarios to explore the potential for shifts in the relative priority of human, structural and relational capital in generating value. [samenvatten]

Special trends in the field

In addition to the general papers, the conference included papers on the following trends that we see in intellectual capital theory:

1. Benefits and limitations of the intellectual capital metaphor

2. Intellectual capital of nations, regions and cities

3. Social capital

4. The dynamics of intellectual capital

5. Intellectual capital for universities and research organisations

6. Measuring the effect of knowledge management

7. Measuring and reporting intellectual capital

8. IC centres across the globe

The mini track on the benefits and limitations of the IC metaphor resulted in five papers. The starting point of this mini track was that the concept of intellectual capital (IC) is based on the metaphor “Knowledge as Capital” (Andriessen, 2008). The way this works is that characteristics of the source domain of capital are used to describe the target domain of knowledge. These characteristics of capital include: capital is valuable and important, capital is an asset for the future and not an expenditure, capital can be capitalized, capital allows for a return and capital resonates with managers and CFO’s. In this track we explored the benefits and the limitations of capital as a metaphor for knowledge and other intangibles. From this track we included three papers: Andriessen et al., Pictures of Knowledge Management, developing a method for analyzing knowledge metaphors in visuals; Andriessen and Van den Boom, In search of alternative metaphors for knowledge: inspiration from symbolism; and Bratianu, The frontier of linearity in the intellectual capital metaphor.

The second mini track about IC of nations, regions and cities also generated five papers. Intellectual capital of nations is the concept that applies the principles of intellectual capital measurement on a macro‑economic level (Bonfour and Edvinsson, 2005). The main motivation for measuring the IC of nations is to get insight into the relative advantage of countries or regions. This insight should help to develop policy in order to give direction to future economic developments. From this track we included two papers in this special issue: Stam and Andriessen, Intellectual capital of the European Union 2008; and Yodmongkon and Chakpitak, Applying intellectual capital process model for creating a defensive protection system to local traditional knowledge: the case of Mea‑hiya community.

The third mini track about social capital included seven papers. Social capital in the form of networks of trust has value for individuals, teams and organizations. It is an indicator for economic success, measurable through constructs like trust, reciprocity, shared norms and values. Social capital is a popular paradigm in organizational studies. The use of social capital theory in the fields of business studies has increased exponentially in recent times. It offers new insight in explaining organisational dynamics, knowledge sharing, learning processes and innovation. While there is an extensive body of knowledge on the benefits of social capital, less attention has been paid to understanding how and why social capital evolves within organisational settings. It is interesting to gain insights into why social capital changes and what the effect is on knowledge sharing, knowledge productivity, learning processes and innovation. From this track we included one paper in this special issue: Tamilina, The impact of welfare state development on social trust formation: an empirical investigation.

The fourth mini track about The Dynamics of IC included four papers. Value in organizations is not created by intellectual assets as such, but by combining intellectual assets in a dynamic process (Andriessen, 2004). According to Kianto (Kianto, 2007), the dynamic dimension of IC relates mainly to three issues: 1) practice‑based approach to IC; 2) dynamics of IC‑based value creation; and 3) renewal, change and innovation of IC.

The fifth mini track about IC for universities and research organizations generated seven papers. In recent years, IC management and reporting have gained importance for research organisations and universities across Europe. Some university departments and research organisations have implemented IC reports and Austrian universities are even obliged by law to publish IC reports. IC management systems provide comparable information for the universities’ management but also for external stakeholders such as industrial partners or science and education policy. However, to exploit its potential in this sector, the specific characteristics of the science, research and innovation process should be addressed. IC management systems should enhance strategic development, innovativeness and knowledge sharing within research institutions and have to be linked to other instruments and tools for management and governance such as evaluation, performance measurement, and benchmarking.

The sixth mini track about measuring the effect of knowledge management included eight papers. A large variety of methods, models and practices for managing an organization’s knowledge assets have been produced by academics and practitioners. There are even different fields of research, e.g. knowledge management, intellectual capital and business intelligence, focusing on different types of knowledge and information management tasks. It seems clear that there is a need for many of these managerial tools. Also, it seems likely that the utilization of these tools would result in concrete business benefits. However, there is so far limited evidence of the actual impacts of knowledge management activities. In addition, it is not clear which management approach would provide the best results in a specific case. From this track we included the paper by Kujansivu and Lonnqvist, Measuring the effects of an IC development service: Case Pietari Business Campus.

The seventh mini track about measuring IC generated 13 papers. The measurement and assessment of intellectual capital and intangible assets is one of the most important and challenging issues for research and practice today. Many argue that without measures we can know nothing and understand nothing. Without measures we can’t do any research, organizations can’t manage their intangibles and they can’t produce meaningful IC statements. However, when it comes to measurement we are facing a real dilemma: we can’t really measure our intangibles in the same way we can measure tangible aspects of performance. When it comes to intangibles we often have to rely on proxy measures or need to find new ways of measuring performance (Marr, 2005). This in turn has important implications of how we can use those measures. From this track we included the paper by Cabrilo, IC‑based inter‑industry variety in Serbia. During the conference this paper received an honourable mention. The author of this paper comes from a research group that is very actively promoting intellectual capital within their developing country. She has produces some important contributions in the past. This paper gives us important new insights into the differences between industries regarding the importance of several intellectual capital components. The author was able to collect data from 642 managers from 80 firms with a response rate of 90% (!) making full use of her teams’ relational capital.

The eight mini track about IC centres across the globe included five papers. In more and more countries organisations are set up to stimulate intellectual capital management. Examples are The Arab Knowledge Economy Association, The developing China IC Support Network, CIP Gothenburg, The Hong Kong based Asia Pacific IC Centre, The IA Centre Scotland, The Indonesia IC Research Centre, InHolland University Centre for Research in IC (CRIC), Lund University IC Centre, The Taiwan IC Research Centre, The Croatian IC Research Centre, The Finland Futures Research Centre, The IP Academy of Singapore, and The Syrian Economic Business Centre. These organisations are driven in some cases predominantly by the desire to create new knowledge and in others by the desire to apply knowledge and IC to foster economic development. This track was set up to facilitate learning between people from all over the world who are involved with IC Centres. From this track we included the paper by Russel, Business model evolution in IA/IC support centres and their role in market making.

Finally, in addition to the academic mini tracks, we also organized a Doctoral Consortium. From this consortium we selected two papers for this special issue: Jaaskelainen, Identifying a suitable approach for measuring and managing public service productivity; and Kot, How to conduct the audit of intellectual capital in Polish tourism business?

Design‑based research as a promising methodology

We noticed an increase of papers that use a so called design‑based research as their research methodology (Andriessen, 2004; Van Aken, 2005; Stam, 2007). Design‑based research is a type of research methodology in which practical managerial tolls are designed and tested for their effect in real life cases. This is a powerful type of research as it addresses both the practical needs of organizations and the academic search for underlying theory. For example, the paper by Kot, included in this special issue, on How to conduct the audit of intellectual capital in polish tourism business, aims at designing an algorithm for an IC audit for Polish tourism companies that they can use to specify the IC structure and diagnose IC assets of their business. Other papers that use this methodology and that are included in this issue are the paper by Kujansivu and Lonnqvist on Measuring the effects of an IC development service: Case Pietari Business Campus, and the paper by Jaaskelainen, on Identifying a suitable approach for measuring and managing public service productivity. All three papers are good examples of how research in the field of IC can both benefit practice and academia when a Design‑Based Research methodology is used.

Abstract

Conceptual metaphors play a vital role in our ability to think in abstract terms like knowledge. Metaphors structure and give meaning to the concept of knowledge. They hide and highlight certain characteristics. The choice of metaphor when reasoning about knowledge is therefore of vital importance for knowledge management (KM). This paper explores the possibility of introducing new knowledge metaphors to the field of KM. Based on a 'wish list' of characteristics of knowledge they want to highlight, the authors choose to explore the Knowledge as a Journey metaphor as a new metaphor for knowledge. This results in new insights regarding knowledge sharing, acquisition, retention, and innovation.

Abstract

Knowledge management (KM) is difficult to pin down. It means different things in different organisations. The deliberate use of metaphors has been used to communicate what KM is about. This metaphorical communication can be even more enriched using visual as well as language mechanisms: "a picture paints a thousand words" suggests we can capture more resonances of a complex subject like KM through visuals than through a description alone. In addition, visuals are perceived to transcend the limitations of language, which can be an obstacle to communication. Yet, no method currently exists that we can use to identify KM metaphors used in visuals. This paper describes our search for a method to analyse metaphors used in visuals about knowledge management. Our objective was threefold: 1) identifying new metaphors for KM in visuals that can enrich KM theorizing, 2) developing a way to identify which visuals are the most powerful in communicating KM theory, and 3) improving the use of visuals as a way of assessing students studying KM. We found that analysing metaphors used in KM visuals is possible using a method that focuses on the dominant metaphors in a visual.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that linearity is a major limitation of the metaphor Knowledge as Capital. This metaphor proposed by Daniel Andriessen as a challenging debate for ECIC 2009 has been extremely fruitful in promoting knowledge as a new field of interest in economic research and praxis. Since Capital is a core concept of any economic activity, using it as a semantic source for the newly coined expression, Intellectual Capital, proved to be a winning idea. However, any metaphor highlights certain things and hides others. There are some semantic frontiers in the source domain which constitute its limitations. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the linearity property of the source domain, and to demonstrate that it constitutes a major limitation of the IC metaphor. We begin with the mathematical definition of a linear space, and then we analyse how this definition requirements, which are fulfilled within the source domain, cannot be fulfilled within the target domain. We are interested especially in the following requirements of the linear space: commutativity, associativity, distributivity and the application of the principle of superposition. The Knowledge domain does not satisfy any of these requirements which means that the target domain is strongly nonlinear. Although many authors have used these concepts of linearity and nonlinearity in connection with knowledge and intellectual capital, none of them undertook a systematic analysis of the basic properties of linear spaces and how they fit within the knowledge field. Linearity is strongly related to the measurable property of the source domain, and this operational connection explains why many methods proposed to measure knowledge and intellectual capital failed to produce good results. We shall extend our analysis to linear and nonlinear thinking patterns, showing how the frontier of linearity can impair managerial decisions. We hope that our work will stimulate new research aiming at using properly the nonlinearity property of the Knowledge field.

Abstract

This paper presents a wide‑ranging research and analysis of intellectual capital within the Serbian business environment. The primary research objective was to scrutinize organizational intellectual capital within different industries in order to facilitate the fine‑tuning of intellectual capital reporting according to particular facets of industry. The role of intellectual capital value drivers in the process of intellectual capital reporting focused this research on the identification of relevant intellectual capital value drivers, as well as the specific features of intellectual capital and knowledge flows within the observed industries. The results have revealed some specific features of industries, thus indicating inter‑industry variety from the perspective of intellectual capital. This research should be viewed, first as a contribution to the refinement of existing intellectual capital reporting methods with respect to unique characteristics of these industries, and second as a case where the different stages of the evolution of intellectual capital between different culturescountries is presented.

Abstract

The Commission of the European Communities (2006) estimates in its report that one third of all EU entrepreneurs will leave within the next ten years. In conjunction with the situation that (1) the majority of Europeans prefer being an employee and (2) the fact that changes in demography will reduce the pool of potential successors over the next decades, this paper argues that external (non‑family) successors take on an important role and are in a position to choose the company, which best matches their expectations. A successful company succession depends on a multitude of different aspects. In the case of external succession, certainly the available funds represent a critical point. However, the assumption is that the decision to acquire a company is based on other factors. It is hypothesised that the potential external successor will be interested in those companies offering potential expansions. In view of the increasing relevance of intangible assets within the firm regarding company success, it is suggested that these assets primarily influence the external successor to go further in the succession process. Thus, it is expected that the future perspectives of the company are founded on its inherent intangibles and which in turn justify a financial investment. The aim of this paper is to explore the role of intangible assets as seen from the viewpoints of external successors. The strategy of research behind this paper is the application of a mixed methods approach which is divided into a survey approach and a case study approach (given priority). Within the quantitative stage a web‑survey was used to obtain data on the relevance of intangible assets in terms of external company succession in SMEs whilst addressing members of German trade corporations and chambers of commerce. The results of the quantitative study were enhanced through qualitative interviews with ten external successors in SMEs. The data that were gathered explores the role of intangible assets during the successors' deliberations as to whether or not the company should be acquired. Intangible assets are found to be important features for external successors. Specifically five intangibles can be highlighted which are brand, partner(s), key‑employees, knowledge retention, and corporate culture. The critical intangibles were summarised in a conceptual framework. The findings suggest that in the case of external succession, intangible assets have a remarkable influence on the external successor's decision‑making and traditional issues in the view of company succession such as tax, legal and, financial aspects should be extended to include intangible aspects.

Abstract

Every public organisation faces the challenge of improving productivity. In this effort, productivity measures are essential managerial tools. However, the task of measuring service productivity has proven to be challenging. A key reason for the challenges seems to be related to the intangibility of services. The objective of this paper is to identify and apply a productivity measurement method satisfying the information requirements of public managers. The study is carried out using a qualitative case study approach. The paper consists of two parts: first, the current knowledge of the issue is examined by reviewing the literature on (service) productivity and performance measurement; second, an action research is carried out in the context of four case services of the City of Helsinki, Finland. A disaggregated approach to productivity measurement is applied. Three different measurement frameworks and methods are evaluated in light of practical criteria for measurement. Finally, a matrix method is chosen and applied in practice. As a result the paper provides more understanding of the process of applying the disaggregated productivity measurement approach in the context of public welfare services.

Abstract

Intellectual capital (IC) â€” defined by the values such as knowledge, skills, experience, organisational, social and cultural relations etc. â€” is one of the most important assets of tourism business and can be perceived as the factor having the greatest influence on the company's value. Due to the leading role of intangible assets in tourism sector, it is important to specify the IC structure and diagnose IC assets for tourism industry. The results of the diagnosis should be taken into consideration in IC management and in the decision‑making process within the organisation. The diagnosis of the IC condition is an issue which has not been the subject of any detailed research in Polish environment. The lack of specific tools as well as the real need for resolving the title problem has been the inspiration for a deeper investigation. The goal of the undertaken research was to prepare the methods of IC audit in tourism companies and to create necessary, utilitarian auditing tools. The main objective was to be achieved by performing the research tasks presented in the paper, among which the most important are: Review of the theory and different IC valuating and measuring methods (literature of the subject). Executing the initial research among experts, executives and employees of tourism market, using Individual in‑Depth Interview (IDI) and participant observation methods. Preparation of an IC audit's algorithms. Programming a software of IC audit implementation. Application of the IC audit prototype to an experimental group with the aim of eliminating any methodological and technical faults. Implementation of the IC audit in chosen Polish tourism companies. Presentation of the results (reporting). The initial research clearly indicated, that the knowledge resulting from an IC audit is useful and necessary for executives. Reporting of IC audit lets managers identify and highlight the missing or neglected elements of IC structure and recommends certain activities in management procedures, designed to enhance business performance. This paper presents the results of the research done so far, but the main goal is to implement the IC audit tool in Polish tourism companies and prove its efficiency.

Abstract

Intellectual capital (IC) development includes a wide set of activities focusing on the improvement of an organisation's intangible resources. However, it is often unclear what kind of impacts different IC initiatives have. The current literature lacks appropriate methods for identifying and measuring them. If it is not possible to assess the impact of various development activities it is difficult to justify IC investments or choose between alternative service providers. This paper, based on a case study, examines how to assess the impacts of an IC development initiative. The empirical research setting is the Pietari Business Campus, a knowledge‑intensive business service organisation providing various development services for its twelve member companies operating in the St. Petersburg region in Russia. In this paper, the literature is first examined to understand how the impacts of development activities can be assessed in different contexts. The characteristics of these approaches are then utilised to formulate the assessment methodology used in the case study. The empirical assessment consists of both numerical indicator data and subjective interview data. The case study showed that the activities and outputs can be measured quite accurately but that the outcomes are difficult to capture. The main challenge results from external changes taking place and making it difficult to observe the outcomes of development activities. Due to the challenging nature of the assessment task and the relatively low managerial priority of the issue (on the customers' side) it is suggested that subjective assessment methods may provide sufficient information in many cases. Although this paper is focused on IC development, there may be similar contexts in other knowledge‑intensive services in which the lessons of this study might be useful.

Abstract

This paper addresses some of the issues for 'migrating' the 'business model of IA IC support centres depending upon the developing nature of their roles over time. It explores how centres may be sustained over a sufficient period of time to impact economically at a local, regional or national level. In state or project‑funded centres it is sometimes difficult to maintain levels of funding over a sustained period of time due to the 'project' nature of many funding schemes. Indeed many of the initiatives in this field globally over the last 10‑15 years have been noticeably transient. As a consequence the assets which might be created are not adequately transferred to more long‑lasting bodies which might be able to exploit them further. To strategically manage a centre often means looking for business models which can sustain the work of the centre over a period of time longer than projects (in excess of five years) to create economic impacts. The paper therefore particularly reflects upon the role of such centres in market‑making (or maybe more accurately market‑proving) should such a role be envisaged for it. The rationale which may lead to the need to explore the making or proving of a market in IA IC support is reviewed as well as the drivers for strategy adjustment which may lead to role changes for support centres. Roles which might bear market return as against those which are unlikely to have commercial returns are examined in the paper. The barriers to making changes in the business model are explored as well as the potential benefits for the users of such centres as well as their funders. The exit routes for the public sector are reviewed. The paper should assist in helping other centres with similar issues. The paper suggests further areas of research for scholars to help illuminate some of the issues which are highlighted in the paper.

Abstract

In 2004 we published the report Intellectual capital of the European Union (Andriessen & Stam, 2004). In this report we provided insight in the value of the intellectual capital of the 15 countries of the European Union, in relationship to the goals set by the European Council in March 2000. The main Lisbon goal was to become "the most competitive and knowledge‑based economy in the world" in 2010. Since our previous report, the EU grew from 15 to 27 countries and the Lisbon goals were reformulated in 2005. The aim of this paper is to measure the IC of the competitive and dynamic knowledge‑based economy, the EU decided to focus on "delivering stronger, lasting growth and creating more and better jobs" (CEC, 2005d, p.7). In this paper we translate this overall goal in 38 indicators. As the data was not available for all the new member states, we decided to limit our paper to the so‑ called EU‑19. Based on our measurements we conclude that the EU‑19 is still behind Japan and far behind the USA, however the EU is catching up as both Japan and the USA have considerably lower growth figures than the EU‑19. From an IC perspective, the EU is geographically divided. The Nordic countries are still the best performing countries. The southern European countries and the new member states stay behind. However, as the new member states invest more in their IC, it might be expected that their positions will improve in the future. Of all the new member states the Czech Republic has the best potential. The aim of our paper was to measure the progress of the Lisbon Agenda for growth and jobs. Based on our measurements we conclude that the EU‑19 is successful in terms of creating more and better jobs, but not successful in terms of delivering stronger, lasting growth. In order to further close the competitiveness gap, the EU should primarily focus on strengthening its SC and RC.

Abstract

Social trust is shaped by many society‑level as well as individual‑level factors. One of the determinants highly debated in literature is the welfare state which reflects the level of state intervention in organizing individuals' welfare. Theoretical as well as empirical studies are in their vast majority controversial with respect to the kind of effects welfare state may have on social trust formation. However, all of them have one element in common â€” they measure welfare state development through social spending. The main objective of this research consists of demonstrating that in order to precisely estimate this impact, it is necessary to introduce a new operationalization for welfare state development which would reflect the outcomes rather than the process of the state intervention into individuals' arrangements. The latter can be obtained by decomposing Esping‑Andersen's welfare regime typology and directly evaluating the effects of decommodification and stratification on social trust indexes. This hypothesis is checked based on a cross‑sectional analysis for a set of 18 OECD countries while using multi‑level modelling as the main research method. The individual‑level analysis demonstrates that de‑ commodification enhances trust formation. The aggregated‑level analysis allows for explaining that this positive effect of decommodification on social trust mainly goes through reduction of income inequality which is the key aim of social policies. Moreover, the analysis demonstrates that the quality of public institutions, in general, and welfare institutions, in particular, conducts essential influence on the level of trust in the societies. Besides decommodification, the form of social stratification was found to matter for social trust. Preserving existing class structure inherent to conservative welfare regime type influences negatively institutional trust, but positively interpersonal trust. Stigmatizing approach apt to liberal welfare state erodes interpersonal trust, but boosts institutional trust. Finally, socialism's universal approach leads to crowding‑in effects in both forms of social trust.

Abstract

Collaborative research over a two year period involving eighteen knowledge management practitioners and a team of academics explored the evolution of a next generation knowledge management agenda. Three scenarios were developed that explored the implications of two dimensions: firstly the underpinning organisational purpose in relation to the factors of production in both an industrial and a knowledge economy paradigm, and secondly the consequences of a predominantly transactional or relational psychological contract between individuals and organisations. By studying the drivers shaping the dynamic evolution of each scenario, we identified that organisations need to pay different levels of attention to the components of structural, human and relational capital in order to optimise value generation in each scenario. The first scenario looks at the natural evolution of the industrial economy paradigm as the pace of change accelerates and the expansion of the competitive environment increases the need for product innovation. The stimulus for this innovation is the quality and motivation of the people employed. Human capital management is the main lever to optimise organisational performance in this scenario. The next two scenarios look at organisations operating in the knowledge economy paradigm. One considers the consequences of continuing with the conventional psychological contract with employees based on a transactional exchange of money for time. A large investment is needed in the structural capital mechanisms to manage the organisational ownership of knowledge and to monitor and stimulate performance in delivering knowledge‑based services. In the other scenario, the focus shifted to a situation where individuals and organisations negotiate common areas of interest before becoming involved together in something approaching a partnership. Learning and competitive agility emerge from networks of individuals and groups coalescing around shared objectives. Relationship capital becomes the basis of value generation.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the implementation of intellectual capital process to manage the traditional knowledge of the community. This qualitative research was conducted through an exploratory method in co‑operation with the Mea‑hiya Community Cultural Council, Chiang Mai, Thailand. A four step‑ approach IC process was recommended; this was aimed at the successful acquisition of the proposed model. The research demonstrates the intellectual capital process model's usefulness. Not only does the model encourage the community to formulate strategies from the stakeholders, but it also puts the strategy in practice because it is grounded in the stakeholders' needs and expectations. The process is more quantifiable by having key success factors' indicators measuring the traditional knowledge capital. The discussion leads to the formulation of a defensive protection system. The outcome of the community's traditional knowledge leans toward a local community‑based organizational paradigm. Consequently, the Mea‑hiya community pointed out the strategy to conserve and protect traditional knowledge by creating a defensive protection system which is incompliance to the WIPO & UNESCO framework (conserve, transmit, and protect of traditional knowledge). This paper allows practitioners to reflect on a case for implementing an IC process to manage cultural traditional knowledge.